Sooner or later everyone loses patience with the UN. What has really done it for me is the situation in Zimbabwe. OK so it wasn't exactly a shining example of a well run country in the 80s, or even 90s, but recently things have headed downhill fairly fast. And the UN has dazzled us with a wondrous display of its uselessness.
Mr Mugabe is a lunatic by many measures, but that alone doesn't disqualify him from office. After all, our own government has announced plans to ban light bulbs next year. But at least we can vote them out. The real problem is that he is also a dictator.
The groups that supposedly leap into action when a leader of a country goes na-na have so far been conspicuous by their lack of leaping prowess.
African leaders, for example: Some
African leaders are growing impatient with the Mugabe government...
Growing impatient? Thousands dead, millions terrorised, an economy ruined and your impatience is growing? The time for that was 5 years ago, guys! You should now be growing daisies over his grave. Perhaps if Mr Mugabe started invading a few neighbours it might get their attention. Wake up!
Some African leaders are growing impatient with the Mugabe government...
Tony Blair, to his credit, has spoken out against Mr Mugabe for years. No action though.
Al Gore, the other saviour of the world, too busy trying to keep his power bill over $30,000 and rescuing the planet form an imagined threat, hasn't had time to comment. Environmentalists worldwide no doubt await his declaration on the matter so they will know which way to jump (although our local environmentalists have been clearly on the right side) Gore's actions in Florida perhaps inspired Zimbabwe's partial vote recount.
The socialists can be relied upon to take the wrong side of the argument:
Blair’s attitude towards Zimbabwe is that of a colonial ruler who expects his orders to be followed to the letter. His increasingly reckless policies threaten to destabilise the entire region.
The United Nations takes the cake though. Just last September they invited Mr Mugabe to speak at a UN meeting. He met with the chief numskull himelf:
Earlier Wednesday, Mr. Mugabe met with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in an encounter sources said was less than cordial.
Less than cordial? Did Mr Ban give him his death-ray stare? Or did he just refuse to supply a 10th lump of sugar for Mr Mugabe's coffee. The report doesn't say...
And just the other day they met with him, and somehow failed to poison his coffee.
It takes someone with guts to say it like it is:
President Bush said Mr. Mugabe's "tyrannical regime" was "an assault on its people and an affront to the principles of the (U.N.) Universal Declaration" of Human Rights.
But of course, human rights isn't exactly the UN's strong suit. As Kiwiblog says:
However the Human Rights Council is a body we should be avoiding. Even the UN Secretary General has criticised it. Within just months it is becoming as discredited as its predecessor body. This is because they watered down all the reforms.
We can achieve nothing of use on this body. We will just get to condemn Israel several times a day, ignore Sudan, Zimbabwe and Syria and get to join Iran in telling off the United Kingdom for its treatment of women.
Please can someone put us out of our misery and explain exactly what the UN is for?
So here's my message to the UN: yes it is our world, so can you kindly shove off back to Mars where you belong?